DOCSLIB.ORG

Gift Exchange and Living-Related Kidney Transplantation in the Philippines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gift Exchange and Living-Related Kidney Transplantation in the Philippines Repaying and Cherishing the Gift of Life: Gift Exchange and Living-related Kidney Transplantation in the Philippines Yosuke Shimazono ABSTRACT: This paper considers living-related kidney transplantation, especially that between family members in the Philippines. Drawing on the anthropological theory of gift, it explores two aspects of the gift relationship—the relationship between the do- nor and the recipient and the relationship between the recipient and the object—and describes two categories of acts—‘acknowledging the debt/repaying the gift of life’ and ‘taking care of a kidney/cherishing the gift’. This paper seeks to show that there is an internal tension in live kidney transplantation between two rival principles of gift operative in the world of Filipino family and kinship: one akin to the Maussian or ‘ar- chaic’ gift and the other that places cherishing of the gift over repaying of the debt. KEYWORDS: ‘archaic’ gift exchange, family, gift, kidney transplantation, Marcel Mauss, Philippines In his seminal essay, The Gift, Mauss attempted is to make a present of some part of oneself’ to unravel the common principles running (1990: 16). The objects given are typically the through gift exchange practices in societies important substance and being of the indi- which he termed ‘archaic’—Melanesia, Poly- vidual and/or group. Even after being given nesia and the Pacific Northwest (Mauss 1990). away, they still bear the ‘stamp of those who According to Mauss and his successors, gift possessed it previously’ (Carrier 1994: 25). exchange as practised in these societies was According to Weiner and Godelier, they are characterised by two major elements that are ‘inalienable possessions’, which cannot com- intertwined: the obligatory transfer of the ob- pletely be alienated; the original owner retains ject and the inalienability of the object. inalienable ownership (Godelier 1999; Weiner Firstly, the giver and the receiver of ‘archaic’ 1992). Mauss’s exposition of the ‘archaic’ gift gifts are bound by a moral obligation to give, provides us with an important platform for an receive and repay, although these acts may be anthropological investigation on organ trans- spontaneously fulfilled or performed with the plantation. This is because, as an internal part attitude of generosity. It is well known that of the body, human visceral organs resist the Mauss singled out the obligation to repay as dichotomy of the ‘person’ and the ‘thing’ and the most important obligation, as it acts as a appear to be ‘part of the person’ as well as part hinge for propagating the circuit of gift-giving. of the body. Secondly, the object transferred through this The aim of this paper is to consider living- kind of gift exchange is inalienable. In Mauss’s related donor kidney transplantation in the term, ‘to make a gift of something to someone Philippines in the light of the anthropological Anthropology in Action, 15, 3 (2008): 34–46 © Berghahn Books and the Association for Anthropology in Action doi:10.3167/aia.2008.150304 Repaying and Cherishing the Gift of Life | AiA theory of the gift. Focusing on cases of live of stewardship over the object given overshad- kidney transplants between family members, ows the norm of reciprocity. I explore the gift relationship between the recipient and the donor. More specifically, I address the following issues. What kind of gift Organ transplantation and the is the donation of kidney from a living family anthropology of the gift member to another? What kind of relationship does this unique form of gift object create? Does organ transplantation have something in What kind of obligation does this gift engen- common with ‘archaic’ gift exchange depicted der? How is this object treated after it has been by Mauss? From one viewpoint, deceased transplanted? donor organ transplantation seems to be even My fieldwork was carried out for 18 diametrically opposed to the Maussian gift months between June 2004 and December exchange. Deceased organ donation may be 2005. It consisted of participant observation characterised as the ‘modern’ gift, not only of the activities of the Kidney Transplant for the obvious reason that this form of gift is Association of the Philippines (KITAP) and made possible by modern medical technology, interviews with its members. KITAP is an as- but also because of the moral and legal rules sociation of ‘kidney transplantees’ or people pertaining to it.1 who have undergone kidney transplantation. Just like blood donated to the British Na- Established in 1984, the KITAP has over 1,500 tional Health Service (NHS), deceased organ members, and organises activities, such as donation is supposed to be nonreciprocal and Patients’ Forum, Kidney Transplant Anni- ‘free’; the donor, who is expected to act out versary Celebration and Philippine National of ‘altruism’, will not receive any countergift Transplant Games. In total, I interviewed and the recipient has no reciprocal obligation 53 transplantees, of whom 22 had received to the donor. This gift-giving is also seen as kidneys from a sibling, parent or child; this a charitable act, directed to an anonymous particular group of interviewees forms the stranger. The giver is an individual citizen focus of this article. who performs this act for the public good I will first present a brief discussion of the (Titmuss 1970; Lock 2002: 317–8). Some ob- relevance of the theory of the gift to anthro- servers also argue that the anonymous gift pological studies of organ transplantation, relationship presupposes the anonymity of the together with an overview of kidney trans- object transferred. As Strathern puts it, ‘Organ plantation in the Philippines. Secondly, I will donors can give anonymously because human describe a public event, then relate the story organs are regarded as anonymous: kidneys of a transplantee that will enable us to gain differ in physical condition rather than social a glimpse of the intricacies of this gift rela- identity […]. Such organs or materials as can tionship. Thirdly, I explore two categories of be excised or secreted from the body become recipients’ acts, both of which are important free-standing entities’ (Sharp 1992: 129). components of the gift relationship between Ethnographers have observed, however, the recipient and their donor: ‘acknowledging that the deceased organ donation is not always and repaying the debt’ and ‘taking care of the a ‘free’ gift and the object given is not totally kidney/cherishing the gift’. In doing so, I aim anonymous (Fox and Swazey 1978; 1992; Lock to show that behind these two categories of 2002; Sharp 1995; 2001; 2006). Firstly, in spite acts are two rival conceptions of the gift: one in of the policy of anonymity, some recipients which the gift compels the receiver to give in wish to meet or write letters to the donor return and the other in which the significance family to express their gratitude, while some | 35 AiA | Yosuke Shimazono donor families hope to form ‘fictive kinship’ ‘As Marcel Mauss could have foretold, what with recipients (Sharp 2006). Secondly, some recipients believe they owe to donors and the recipients regard transplant organs as still be- sense of obligation they feel about repaying ing attached to the donor; incorporation of the “their” donor for what has been given, weigh inalienable object may lead to ‘transformative heavily on them’ (Fox and Swazey 1992: 40). A experience’ (Sharp 1995; 2006). Some donor transfer of an inalienable possession can also families also hold the view that the life of the lead to a situation in which the donor and the deceased donor somehow persists in the re- recipient are ‘locked in a creditor-debtor vise cipient’s body. that binds them one to another in a mutually It appears then that the predominant logic fettering way’ (1992: 40). of the gift—the nonreciprocal gift of an anony- Although such a picture of live organ trans- mous and alienable object—is haunted by plantation seems to fit well with the Maussian another logic of the gift, which is reminiscent picture of the archaic gift exchange, it leaves of the one which Mauss thought operative in some questions unanswered. Does living do- ‘archaic’ societies. Deceased organ donation nor organ transplantation necessarily lead to may create an enduring bond between the the ‘mutually fettering’ creditor–debtor rela- transacting parties. Unlike transfusion blood, tionship? If not, how this can be explained? the impersonality of which is fostered by the Is this because kidney donation is somehow technological process of separating its com- understood as the ‘free’ gift? Is reciprocity the ponents and storing them (Copeman 2005), only moral principle that governs the gift rela- transplant organs still bear the social identity tionship between the recipient and the donor? of their giver and remain attached to the spe- cific person—at least for some donor families and recipients.2 Kidney transplantation in the What then about living donor organ trans- Philippines plantation? Live donor organs also are ex- pected to be given ‘freely’. The moral concepts Kidney transplantation is a medical procedure of ‘altruism’, which also appear in the Western that is performed on patients who are suf- bioethical discourse on live organ donation, fering from end stage renal disease (ESRD) however, conceal obvious differences between or whose kidneys have irreversibly lost most the economy of live and deceased organs. A of their functions. Kidney transplantation is live donor organ is predominantly expected considered more cost effective than kidney to be transferred within an interpersonal rela- dialysis and is associated with a better ‘quality tionship of family and friendship, where the of life’. A kidney can be donated either by a anonymity between the donor and recipient is deceased or by a living person. The very first precluded.3 successful kidney transplantation, performed Although the amount and scope of anthro- in 1954, used a kidney donated by the patient’s pological literature on living donor kidney monozygotic twin.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Policy Brief for the State of New Hampshire
    Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College Policy Research Shop A Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences Roles for the Private Sector in State Parks Systems A Policy Brief for the State of New Hampshire September 21, 2006 PRS Policy Brief 0506-07 Prepared by: Tracey A. Fung, William O’Neal, and Adam H. Sigelman This report was written by undergraduate students at Dartmouth College under the direction of professors in the Rockefeller Center. William O’Neal, a graduate student in the chemistry department, supervised the students and contributed to the preparation of this report. We are also thankful for the services received from the Student Center for Research, Writing, and Information Technology (RWiT) at Dartmouth College. Contact: Nelson A. Rockefeller Center, 6082 Rockefeller Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 http://policyresearch.dartmouth.edu • Email: [email protected] Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College Policy Research Shop A Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences TABLE OF CONTENTS ROLES FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN STATE PARKS SYSTEMS 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 2 1.1 Privatization by Delegation 2 1.2 Purpose of Privatization 3 1.3 Concerns about Privatization 5 2. ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF PRIVATIZATION 7 3. POTENTIAL ROLES FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN NH STATE PARKS 9 3.1 Custodial 9 3.2 Retail 9 4. CASE STUDIES 11 4.1 New Hampshire 11 4.2 New York 11 4.3 Kentucky 12 4.4 British Columbia 13 4.5 Georgia 14 4.6 South Dakota 15 4.7 Vermont 15 4.8 Summary 16 5. CONCLUSION 16 1 Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College Policy Research Shop A Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Noiva Do Cordeiro Community: Contributions from Elements of a System Based on Substantive Economy
    Comunidade Noiva do Cordeiro: contribuições por meio de elementos de um sistema baseado em uma economia substantiva Luiz Paulo Rigueira de Morais ¹ Wescley Silva Xavier ¹ Daniel Calbino Pinheiro ² ¹ Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV), Viçosa – MG, Brasil ² Universidade Federal de São João del-Rei (UFSJ), São João del-Rei – MG, Brasil Resumo Este estudo investigou como ocorreram a formação e a interação de um sistema econômico alternativo na comunidade Noiva do Cordeiro-MG com as dinâmicas da Economia Mercantil. Para atingir este objetivo, realizou-se uma investigação qualitativa valendo-se de uma etnográfica desenvolvida na comunidade rural. Baseado nas teorias da sociologia econômica de Marcel Mauss e de Karl Polanyi, este trabalho sinaliza que os aspectos da dádiva e da reciprocidade nas relações produtivas foram fundamentais para a reprodução de uma forte lógica solidária. Mediante princípios, estruturas e instituições muito próprios, em que o dinheiro tem uma importância bem limitada, os achados apontam que a comunidade desenvolveu um sistema diferenciado reproduzindo múltiplas lógicas econômicas, a despeito da tensão resultante de uma economia de mercado. Palavras-chave: Economia Solidária. Sociologia Econômica. Etnografia. Comunidade Noiva do Cordeiro. Noiva do Cordeiro community: contributions from elements of a system based on substantive economy Abstract This study investigated the formation and interaction of an alternative economic system in the Noiva do Cordeiro-MG community with the dynamics of the mercantile economy. Qualitative research was conducted from an ethnography study developed with the rural community. Based on the theories of economic sociology by Marcel Mauss and Karl Polanyi, this paper points out that the aspects of giving and reciprocity in productive relationships were central to reproducing a strong solidarity logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Gifts of Appreciated Property Capital Gains Tax You Are Generous with Your Cash Gifts, but Sometimes You Would Like to Give Even More
    / 1 Gifts of Appreciated Property Capital Gains Tax You are generous with your cash gifts, but sometimes you would like to give even more. Gifts of appreciated When you own an asset that has appreciated in value, assets may be the solution: and if you sell that asset, you will pay a tax on the difference between your purchase price and what you • A gift of appreciated assets may allow you to give to your heart’s content when cash flow is not received from the sale. This is called a capital gains tax. sufficient. Capital gains tax rates are based on your personal income tax bracket at the time of sale and the length of • When you make a gift of an appreciated asset, there may be additional tax advantages. time you owned the property. Motives for Giving Capital Gains Tax is Optional Did you know that capital gains tax is an optional tax? While gifts of appreciated assets provide excellent tax You have three options that are correlated with this tax: benefits for many—that is just icing on the cake. Our experience is that most Christian stewards give: Option #1—pay the tax. • Due to of our love for God and our desire to express Naturally, this is the most expensive option. that love to those around us. Option #2—postpone the tax. • As an act of worship and gratitude to God. By holding appreciated assets, entering into an exchange of real estate under a special section • To fulfill the “gift of giving” (Romans 12:6-8).
    [Show full text]
  • An Economic Sociological Look at Economic Anthropology
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Aspers, Patrik; Darr, Asaf; Kohl, Sebastian Article An economic sociological look at economic anthropology economic sociology_the european electronic newsletter Provided in Cooperation with: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), Cologne Suggested Citation: Aspers, Patrik; Darr, Asaf; Kohl, Sebastian (2007) : An economic sociological look at economic anthropology, economic sociology_the european electronic newsletter, ISSN 1871-3351, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), Cologne, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, pp. 3-10 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/155897 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available
    [Show full text]
  • Own and Be Owned Archaeological Approaches to the Concept of Possession
    Own and be owned Archaeological approaches to the concept of possession P AG – Postdoctoral Archaeological Group Alison Klevnäs & Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson (Eds) Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 62, 2015 Own and be owned Archaeological approaches to the concept of possession © 2015 by PAG – Postdoctoral Archaeological Group, and the authors Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm www.archaeology.su.se Editors: Alison Klevnäs & Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson English revision: Kristin Bornholdt Collins Cover and typography: Anna Röst, Karneol form & kommunikation Printed by Publit, Stockholm, Sweden 2015 ISSN 0349-4128 ISBN 978-91-637-8212-1 Contents Preface vii Alison Klevnäs & Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson Introduction: the nature of belongings 1 Alison Klevnäs Things of quality: possessions and animated objects in the Scandinavian Viking Age 23 Nanouschka Myrberg Burström The skin I live in. The materiality of body imagery 49 Fredrik Fahlander To own and be owned: the warriors of Birka’s garrison 73 Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson The propriety of decorative luxury possessions. Reflections on the occurrence of kalathiskos dancers and pyrrhic dancers in Roman visual culture 93 Julia Habetzeder Hijacked by the Bronze Age discourse? A discussion of rock art and ownership 109 Per Nilsson Capturing images: knowledge, ownership and the materiality of cave art 133 Magnus Ljunge Give and take: grave goods and grave robbery in the early middle ages 157 Alison Klevnäs Possession through deposition: the 'ownership' of coins in contemporary British coin-trees 189 Ceri Houlbrook Possession, property or ownership? 215 Chris Gosden About the authors 222 Things of quality: possessions and animated objects in the Scandinavian Viking Age Nanouschka M.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants: Crop Diversity Pre‐Breeding Technologies As Agrarian Care Co‐Opted?
    Accepted: 12 September 2018 DOI: 10.1111/area.12499 SPECIAL SECTION INTERSTICES OF CARE: RE-IMAGINING THE GEOGRAPHIES OF CARE Plants: Crop diversity pre‐breeding technologies as agrarian care co‐opted? Garrett Graddy-Lovelace School of International Service, American Within the realm of international agricultural biodiversity conservation, there has University, Washington, DC, USA been a surge of funding for “pre‐breeding” of plant genetic resources for food and Correspondence agriculture. Molecular high‐throughput analysis, among other techniques, attempts to Garrett Graddy-Lovelace Email: [email protected] discern, document, and digitise the genomic traits of farmer/landrace varieties and crop wild relatives stored in gene banks to render them legible fodder for professional breeding. But pre‐breeding necessitates thorough phenotypic evaluation and charac- terisation to understand the physiological attributes, heritable traits, and responses of a plant through its life cycle, under various growing and climactic conditions. This paper explores the irony that a range of surveillance technologies have been devel- oped and deployed to mimic the agrarian work and skills of observing plants and attending to how they are faring, what they like and do not like over many seasons and contexts. These calls and technologies acknowledge the need for heedful atten- tion to crops, even as they further displace actual farmers and their longstanding modes of selecting and saving open‐pollinated seeds each harvest. Here, attending to crops entails remembering and communicating collectively gathered information of and from the plant. Such agrarian expertise of caring for plants has been systemati- cally devalued and de‐intellectualised, with gendered implications. Drawing on femi- nist geographies and political ecology, a landscape of care framework discloses the matrix of human and beyond‐human care at work in cultivating agricultural biodiver- sity.
    [Show full text]
  • Features of Gift Exchange in Market Economy
    UNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI FAKULTETA ZA DRUŽBENE VEDE ANDREJ RUS FEATURES OF GIFT EXCHANGE IN MARKET ECONOMY LASTNOSTI EKONOMIJE DARU V TRŽNI EKONOMIJI DOKTORSKA DISERTACIJA DOCTORAL THESIS Mentor: prof. dr. Vesna V. Godina Somentor: prof. dr. Josephus D. M. Platenkamp LJUBLJANA, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First I would like to thank my mentors dr. Vesna Godina and dr. Jos Platenkamp for their indispensable help and guidance. I would also like to thank to dr. Zlatko Jančič for his comments, which notably improved this thesis. I am also very grateful to Katja Vukčevič and Janez Kne for their really valuable ideas and suggestions in the process of conceiving this thesis. Last but not least, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family: Darja, Katja and Arjan for their unconditional support and patience. IZJAVA O AVTORSTVU Spodaj podpisani Andrej Rus, z vpisno številko 21041310, Sem avtor doktorskega dela z naslovom: Features of gift exchange in market economy (Lastnosti ekonomije daru v tržni ekonomiji). S svojim podpisom zagotavljam, da: • je predložena doktorska disertacija izključno rezultat mojega raziskovalnega dela; • sem poskrbel, da so dela in mnenja drugih avtorjev oz. avtoric, ki jih uporabljam v predloženem delu, navedena oz. citirana v skladu s fakultetnimi navodili; • sem poskrbel, da so vsa dela in mnenja drugih avtorjev oz. avtoric navedena v seznamu virov, ki je sestavni element predloženega dela in je zapisan v skladu s fakultetnimi navodili; • sem pridobil vsa dovoljenja za uporabo avtorskih del, ki so v celoti prenesena v predloženo delo in sem to tudi jasno zapisal v predloženem delu; • se zavedam, da je plagiatorstvo – predstavljanje tujih del, bodisi v obliki citata bodisi v obliki skoraj dobesednega prafraziranja bodisi v grafični obliki, s katerim so tuje misli oz.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of State Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes
    INFORMATION BRIEF Research Department Minnesota House of Representatives 600 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Joel Michael, Legislative Analyst [email protected] Updated: July 2018 Survey of State Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes This information brief provides background information on state estate, inheritance, and gift taxes. The District of Columbia and 17 states, including Minnesota, impose one or more of these taxes. The District of Columbia and 11 states, including Minnesota, impose estate taxes, five states impose inheritance taxes, and Maryland imposes both an estate and inheritance tax. Connecticut imposes a gift tax (in addition to an estate tax). Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 Estate Taxes ..................................................................................................... 4 State Inheritance Taxes .................................................................................... 8 Gift Taxes......................................................................................................... 9 Reconciling Different State and Federal Exemptions .................................... 11 Exemptions or Deductions for Farm and Small Business Property ............... 14 Revenues Yielded by the Taxes ..................................................................... 16 Copies of this publication
    [Show full text]
  • Utilitarianism and Wealth Transfer Taxation
    Utilitarianism and Wealth Transfer Taxation Jennifer Bird-Pollan* This article is the third in a series examining the continued relevance and philosophical legitimacy of the United States wealth transfer tax system from within a particular philosophical perspective. The article examines the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and his philosophical progeny and distinguishes the philosophical approach of utilitarianism from contemporary welfare economics, primarily on the basis of the concept of “utility” in each approach. After explicating the utilitarian criteria for ethical action, the article goes on to think through what Mill’s utilitarianism says about the taxation of wealth and wealth transfers, the United States federal wealth transfer tax system as it stands today, and what structural changes might improve the system under a utilitarian framework. I. INTRODUCTION A nation’s tax laws can be seen as its manifested distributive justice ideals. While it is clear that the United States’ Tax Code contains a variety of provisions aimed at particular non-distributive justice goals,1 underneath the political * James and Mary Lassiter Associate Professor of Law, University of Kentucky College of Law. Thanks for useful comments on the project go to participants in the National Tax Association meeting, the Loyola Los Angeles Law School Tax Colloquium, the Tax Roundtable at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, and the University of Kentucky College of Law Brown Bag Workshop, as well as Professors Albertina Antognini, Richard Ausness, Stefan Bird-Pollan, Zach Bray, Jake Brooks, Miranda Perry Fleischer, Brian Frye, Brian Galle, Michael Healy, Kathy Moore, Katherine Pratt, Ted Seto, and Andrew Woods.
    [Show full text]
  • Inalienable Wealth in Forster's Howards
    Inalienable Wealth in Forster’s Howards End In my presentation, I will focus on inherited objects in E. M. Forster’s Howards End (1910). My main focus will be on how Forster portrays inheritance in Edwardian England and it is my claim that Howards End can be read as Forster’s attempt to rescue the ‘society of inheritance’ (concept borrowed from Thomas Piketty) by moving the focus from inherited wealth to inherited values. My analysis is focusing on the house of Howards End in particular and I will argue that the house is an ‘inalienable object’. I have borrowed the concept of inalienable objects from anthropology and I have attached an article about the concept written by Carolyn Folkman Curasi, Linda L. Price and Eric J. Arnould. I have, furthermore, selected some short text passages to illustrate some of the points, I will make in my presentation. For those of you who have not read the novel, I have also attached a plot summary from Wikipedia. References Curasi, Carolyn Folkman, Linda L. Price & Eric J. Arnould, “How Individuals’ Cherished Possessions Become Families’ Inalienable Wealth,” Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 31 (December 2004): 609- 622 Forster, E. M., Howards End, London: Penguin English Library, 2012. Piketty, Thomas, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014 Quotes Chapter 3 “She [Ruth Wilcox] seemed to belong not to the young people and their motor, but to the house, and to the tree that overshadowed it. One knew that she worshipped the past, and that the instinctive wisdom the past can alone bestow had descended upon her – that wisdom to which we give the clumsy name of aristocracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Drucker, Karl Polanyi, and the Midcentury Critique of Economic Society
    Polanyi in the United States: Peter Drucker, Karl Polanyi, and the Midcentury Critique of Economic Society Daniel Immerwahr An extraordinary trend in the social sciences has been the revival, from relative obscurity, of Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation. With the end of the Cold War and the rise of neoliberalism, Karl Polanyi’s ideas are, ironically, more relevant today than they were in 1944, when his book was first published. Social theorists concerned with political economy in partic- ular have latched onto The Great Transformation for its powerful criticisms of market-based policies and for its defense of the role of the state. Rather than speaking of the need for governments to don what Thomas Friedman calls ‘‘the golden straightjacket’’ of market discipline, Polanyians speak of states creating the sorts of markets that meet human needs—economic structures that will serve society, not command it.1 Enthusiasm for such an approach has led admirers of Polanyi to found the Karl Polanyi Institute of Political Economy, hold eleven international Karl Polanyi conferences, translate The Great Transformation into at least nine languages, and pub- lish numerous books and articles on Polanyi’s ideas. This article has benefited greatly from the advice of Nils Gilman, Fred Block, Dan Buch, Robin Einhorn, David Hollinger, Mike Levien, Ben Oppenheim, Ariel Ron, the JHI’s readers, and the Berkeley Intellectual History Group: Ryan Acton, Eliah Bures, Grahame Foreman, Simon Grote, Keith Woodhouse, and Ben Wurgaft. 1 Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999), chap. 5. Copyright ᭧ by Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 70, Number 3 (July 2009) 445 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS ✦ JULY 2009 And yet, despite Polanyi’s current popularity, his path to prominence has been a tortuous one.
    [Show full text]
  • Appel a Proj What Gender Makes
    “What Gender Makes” Call for contributions for a forthcoming issue of Techniques&Cultures Co-ordinated by Pascale Bonnemère, Franck Cochoy and Chloé Clovis Maillet Ninety years ago, Marcel Mauss described the “division according to sex” as "a fundamental division of great importance in all societies to a degree that we may not suspect. Our sociology, in this sense, is much weaker than it should be when addressing this point. All that we can say to our students, particularly to those who might do fieldwork, is that we have only been doing the sociology of men and not that of women or of both sexes.” (Mauss, 1969: 15).1 A few years later, Mauss pointed out that “two things were immediately apparent given the notion of techniques of the body: they are divided and vary by sex and by age” (1973 [1936]: 76).2 He added that this division of the techniques of the body between sexes could not simply be equated to the gendered division of labor. Mauss thus opened the way for a still ongoing conversation around the issue of the relation between gender and technology. This author had already mentioned the male bias (or androcentrism) in social sciences, presenting “sex” (although his vocabulary differs from the terms in use today) as a dimension that runs through social life and as an operator of general significance; he also warned that the division of techniques of the body between the sexes goes beyond gendered forms of work. This issue of Techniques & Culture aims to elaborate on this program—which still remains to be fully explored—through case studies covering different periods and geographic areas.
    [Show full text]